Ball Resting Against Branch on Sloped Green

[PianoSteve]

Had this come up in a round yesterday with my son. I've never seen anything like it, and can't seem to find any information applicable. So I'll open it up to you guys -- how would you handle this, or is there an applicable rule?

My son chipped onto a sloped green. His ball started trickling down the slope, but was stopped by a branch that had fallen on the green prior to us playing the hole.

I know how this works in the fairway -- if you move an object and your ball moves, it's a penalty. But is it different on the green?

After he and I talked about options (we were almost certain that moving the branch would result in the ball rolling more), we settled on the following: He marked his ball and lifted it. Then, he moved the branch. When he was ready to putt, he replaced his ball (it didn't start rolling when it was placed) and finished out the hole.

Were we right to mark and lift in that case? The ball HAD stopped moving, but only because of the branch in its way.

I'm curious for feedback on this. Thanks!

steve :)

[Fourputt]

Had this come up in a round yesterday with my son. I've never seen anything like it, and can't seem to find any information applicable. So I'll open it up to you guys -- how would you handle this, or is there an applicable rule?

You were correct. The ball was at rest on the putting green, so he was permitted to mark and lift it. He is then also allowed to remove loose impediments, which the branch was. If the ball had refused to remain on the spot when replaced, he would have been required to place it on the nearest spot on the green not closer to the hole where it would remain at rest and play from there.

[iacas]

You were correct. The ball was at rest on the putting green, so he was permitted to mark and lift it. He is then also allowed to remove loose impediments, which the branch was. If the ball had refused to remain on the spot when replaced, he would have been required to place it on the nearest spot on the green not closer to the hole where it would remain at rest and play from there.

Though that's correct, I wonder if it's also possible to proceed differently based on this Decision:

Source: Decisions on Rule 23 Under Rule 23-1, a player incurs no penalty if a ball on the putting green moves while he is in the process of removing a loose impediment. Rule 23-1 overrides Rule 18-2b in this case.

That's a bit vague. It doesn't specify that you should mark (or re-mark) the ball prior to removing the loose impediment, so how can you say exactly where the ball was if it moves when removing a loose impediment? Otherwise, rule 20-3(d)(i) says you should place at the nearest spot, yes. But that may be a totally different spot than the one the ball would have rolled to. I've seen instances where a bit of sand stops the ball from rolling down a slope. You can mark, brush the sand away, and then put your ball back down and oftentimes, lacking the momentum it had before, it will stay there just fine. That's similar to this type of situation.

[Fourputt]

Though that's correct, I wonder if it's also possible to proceed differently based on this Decision:

I don't see it as being vague. Rule 23 states unequivocally that

On the putting green, if the ball or ball-marker is accidentally moved in the process of removing a loose impediment, the ball or ball-marker must be replaced. There is no penalty, provided the movement of the ball or ball-marker is directly attributable to the removal of the loose impediment. Otherwise, if the player causes the ball to move, he incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2a.

Meaning that if you lift the loose impediment, and the ball doesn't move, then when your hand is a few inches above the ball and the object slips out of your hand and hits the ball and moves it, then you are subject to penalty under 18-2a.

In any case, if the ball moves as a direct result of removing the loose impediment, it must be replaced without penalty, or if it won't remain there, then it must be placed in the nearest place not nearer to the hole where it will stay. I just prefer to mark and lift the ball first so as to take any question out of the act.

[PianoSteve]

Thanks for the responses, guys. I think Erik is right that you can proceed the other way, too. Although I agree with Rick that marking/lifting first seems to remove any question as to where and how the ball should be placed to finish.

And Erik, you were right that placing the ball back there without momentum meant that the ball stayed without any problem.

All in all, my son got a HUGE break on that hole with the branch stopping his ball. The momentum probably would have brought the ball back to the fringe. As it was, he had about a 3-footer and made it.

Thanks again, guys.

[iacas]

I don't see it as being vague.

You've misinterpreted why I think it's a bit vague. It has nothing to do with lifting a loose impediment a few inches and then dropping it on the golf ball.

Remember how the wind blew that guy's ball closer to the hole on the island green at the TPC Sawgrass this year? What if a loose impediment was holding that up, and you replace the ball. The rule you've chosen to follow says you should find the nearest point no nearer the whole where the ball can be placed at rest. Depending on which way the slope was going, that could be nearer to the hole than where the ball would come to rest on its own (if the slope is away from the hole) or further way from the hole (if the slope, like the 17th at Sawgrass, was towards the hole). So imagine you lift something and the ball sits for half a second, then starts rolling because a teeny bit of wind may have started it down the slope. Now it has nothing to do with the loose impediment, so you don't "place" it anywhere - you play it where it rolls to. Or what if it's one second later. A quarter second? Five seconds? What if you're not sure? That's what I think is vague. We have two different possible rulings for a ball moving on the green. In one, you place it somewhere. In another, you play it where gravity takes it.

[Fourputt]

You've misinterpreted why I think it's a bit vague. It has nothing to do with lifting a loose impediment a few inches and then dropping it on the golf ball.

The key is whether the movement of the ball is "directly attributable" to removing the loose impediment. That should be fairly indisputable. If the ball moves immediately as the impediment is lifted, then it doesn't matter if a hurricane is blowing, the ball should be replaced. If the ball sits for even a brief time after the impediment is lifted, then the blame falls on the wind, or gravity, or whatever, but the ball is then played from where it comes to rest.

The argument about what is the direct act of lifting was hashed out on another site, but the rule is quite clear (we were talking about a ball marker, but the same idea applies). Lifting is the act of removing the object from contact with the ground and getting it clear of the ball. The rule and decision are written such that the immediate act ends as the object is lifted above the height of the ball (the decision says that if the object is dropped " from any height " that it is not part of the act, thus the interpretation of when it is no longer directly attributable), so if the ball hasn't moved by then, it can't be directly attributable to the act of removing the loose impediment.

[iacas]

The key is whether the movement of the ball is "directly attributable" to removing the loose impediment. That should be fairly indisputable.

My last post on this, because I'm just repeating myself: Define "immediately"? Is "within a quarter of a second" immediately? What do you do if you can't tell?

The outcome could be vastly different, and the Rules also say that the "most equitable" thing should be done in this case. Given that the ball could roll further or closer, I'm not sure what's most equitable if you don't know what happened. ANyway, the odds of this occurring are probably slim to none. The OP's question has been answered, yeah?

[PianoSteve]

The OP's question has been answered, yeah?

Yep. Thanks! :) You can close the thread if you want. I sure didn't mean to bring up something that would lead to debate. My original question was straightforward, and both of you gave straightforward answers to my question. Thanks, both.